--- On Thu, 6/23/11, Marc Paré wrote:
> From: Marc Paré
> Subject: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF
> Reader"
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 2:40 PM
> OK, this is just a teaser to entice
> people into a discussion of the fo
Hi Antonio
Le 2011-06-23 18:05, Antonio Olivares a écrit :
Marc,
Idea sounds good, but there is also another competitor out there to the famous
PDF :
http://djvu.sourceforge.net/
How about adding editing/viewing djvu compatibility to LibreOffice too?
I for one (except under windows) use ev
On 23 Jun 2011, at 23:32, Marc Paré wrote:
>
>
> I think it was mentioned that there were at one point over 100 million
> LibreOffice/OOo users. If we were to develop our own "LibreOffice Reader" we
> would already have 100 million potential users for our product. Not only
> that, the LibreO
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 17:40 -0400, Marc Paré wrote:
> OK, this is just a teaser to entice people into a discussion of the
> following proposal.
>
> There is talk on the documentation list of the formats made available to
> users of our documents (manuals, reference books, etc). These for now
>
Marc Paré wrote:
> This thread is really about proposing, to the devs, the possibility of
> creating a "LibreOffice Reader" similar to the "Adobe .pdf Reader".
This could be an idea to investigate, but I don't know how feasible it
is; actually there is (or used to be) a "read only" mode in
OpenOf
Simon Phipps wrote:
On 23 Jun 2011, at 23:32, Marc Paré wrote:
I think it was mentioned that there were at one point over 100 million LibreOffice/OOo
users. If we were to develop our own "LibreOffice Reader" we would already have
100 million potential users for our product. Not only that,
--- On Thu, 6/23/11, Marc Paré wrote:
> From: Marc Paré
> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF
> Reader"
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 3:32 PM
> Hi Antonio
>
> L
On 2011-06-24, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Marc Paré wrote:
>> if we were to promote a "quick and dirty"
>> "LibreOffice Reader", very much like the "Adobe Acrobat Reader", whose
>> sole purpose is to provide the ability to "read" ".odt" files, there
>> would be no need to carry .pdf formatted fil
@Mark& others
I like the idea, don't get me wrong. But sadly it is hard for developers out
there to make just a viewer when some other folks have that :( already. It
would be nice if more people, sed -i 's|people|users|g' out there would use the
OpenDocument format (*.odt) and not pdf to sh
Simon Phipps wrote:
On 23 Jun 2011, at 23:32, Marc Paré wrote:
I think it was mentioned that there were at one point over 100
million LibreOffice/OOo users. If we were to develop our own
"LibreOffice Reader" we would already have 100 million potential
users for our product. Not only that, the
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 17:40 -0400, Marc Paré wrote:
OK, this is just a teaser to entice people into a discussion of the
following proposal.
There is talk on the documentation list of the formats made available to
users of our documents (manuals, reference books, etc). These for now
are in .odt (
Marc Paré wrote:
This thread is really about proposing, to the devs, the possibility of
creating a "LibreOffice Reader" similar to the "Adobe .pdf Reader".
This could be an idea to investigate, but I don't know how feasible it
is; actually there is (or used to be) a "read only" mode in
OpenOffic
I personally feel we have more important set of priorities than diversifying
right now into PDF reader. Also no point inventing the wheel again when
there are several open source pdf readers available which we can integrate
instead of developing one of our own.
Won't it be a better idea to collabo
On 23 June 2011 22:40, Marc Paré wrote:
> OK, this is just a teaser to entice people into a discussion of the
> following proposal.
>
> There is talk on the documentation list of the formats made available to
> users of our documents (manuals, reference books, etc). These for now are in
> .odt (O
Le 2011-06-23 17:48, Ian Lynch a écrit :
Main problem is you are effectively competing with MS Office readers that do
a similar job wit .doc but have never displaced pdf. So I think the chances
of a LibO reader displacing pdf are not very high.
IMO, we can take into account the MSO readers, bu
Le 2011-06-23 22:59, Varun Mittal a écrit :
I personally feel we have more important set of priorities than diversifying
right now into PDF reader. Also no point inventing the wheel again when
there are several open source pdf readers available which we can integrate
instead of developing one of
Varun Mittal wrote:
I personally feel we have more important set of priorities than diversifying
right now into PDF reader. Also no point inventing the wheel again when
there are several open source pdf readers available which we can integrate
instead of developing one of our own.
I am wonder
I use a pdf reader called foxit when I am forced to fire up my windows VMs.
I am not sure of its licensing.
On Jun 24, 2011 12:26 AM, "Robert Derman"
wrote:
> Varun Mittal wrote:
>> I personally feel we have more important set of priorities than
diversifying
>> right now into PDF reader. Also no
"LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF
Reader"
[ ... ]
What I
meant by HUGE when I referred to Adobe Reader was the more than 6 Gigs
of hard drive space it takes up! By contrast all of the LibreOffice
suite of programs takes up 475 Megs of space. That means that a mere
On 24/06/2011 03:59, Marc Paré wrote:
Marc Paré wrote:
This thread is really about proposing, to the devs, the possibility of
creating a "LibreOffice Reader" similar to the "Adobe .pdf Reader".
This could be an idea to investigate, but I don't know how feasible it
is; actually there is (or used
Le 2011-06-24 01:55, Mike Hall a écrit :
On 24/06/2011 03:59, Marc Paré wrote:
Marc Paré wrote:
This thread is really about proposing, to the devs, the possibility of
creating a "LibreOffice Reader" similar to the "Adobe .pdf Reader".
This could be an idea to investigate, but I don't know how
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Robert Derman
wrote:
> Varun Mittal wrote:
>>
>> I personally feel we have more important set of priorities than
>> diversifying
>> right now into PDF reader. Also no point inventing the wheel again when
>> there are several open source pdf readers available which
On 24/06/2011 03:59, Marc Paré wrote: The initial use of the
"LibreOffice Reader" would be just a plain reader, the challenge after
this would be to try to build as much document fidelity into it as
possible. Again, with the hopes to rival .pdf fidelity. Maybe once all
the devs put their head
Le 2011-06-24 14:34, Robert Derman a écrit :
On 24/06/2011 03:59, Marc Paré wrote: The initial use of the
"LibreOffice Reader" would be just a plain reader, the challenge
after this would be to try to build as much document fidelity into it
as possible. Again, with the hopes to rival .pdf fid
On 24/06/2011 00:30, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> I like the idea, don't get me wrong.
+1
>it is hard for developers out there to make just a viewer when some other
>folks have that :( already.
This is the type of project that might be more suitable for the Apache
Software Foundation.
> My $0.
Le 2011-06-24 17:08, toki a écrit :
it is hard for developers out there to make just a viewer when some other folks
have that :( already.
This is the type of project that might be more suitable for the Apache
Software Foundation.
My $0.04 (previous $0.02 + this $0.02) don't add sales tax pleas
On 2011-06-24, Robert Derman wrote:
> Varun Mittal wrote:
>> I personally feel we have more important set of priorities than diversifying
>> right now into PDF reader. Also no point inventing the wheel again when
>> there are several open source pdf readers available which we can integrate
>> inst
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Nuno J. Silva wrote:
> On 2011-06-24, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> Marc Paré wrote:
>>> if we were to promote a "quick and dirty"
>>> "LibreOffice Reader", very much like the "Adobe Acrobat Reader", whose
>>> sole purpose is to provide the ability to "read" ".odt" f
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:06:17 -0400
Marc Paré wrote:
> Charles H. Schultz has informed us that the OASIS group has no
> intention of embedding fonts for v.1.2, 1.3 or any future versions,
> so getting the same type of fidelity from a LibreOffice Reader will
> not be possible. In this case, if one
Manfred wrote:
"I still believe that PDF is the best solution to distribute final versions
of text (and maybe other office) documents."
I'd say yes if they are likely to be printed on paper, no if it is only
likely to be read from a screen. Snag is desktop office software originates
from a time w
On 25 June 2011 10:02, timofonic timofonic wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Nuno J. Silva
> wrote:
> > On 2011-06-24, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >
> >> Marc Paré wrote:
> >>> if we were to promote a "quick and dirty"
> >>> "LibreOffice Reader", very much like the "Adobe Acrobat Reader", w
On 25 Jun 2011, at 08:33, Ian Lynch wrote:
> Manfred wrote:
>
> "I still believe that PDF is the best solution to distribute final versions
> of text (and maybe other office) documents."
>
> I'd say yes if they are likely to be printed on paper, no if it is only
> likely to be read from a scree
On 25 June 2011 13:37, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 25 Jun 2011, at 08:33, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> > Manfred wrote:
> >
> > "I still believe that PDF is the best solution to distribute final
> versions
> > of text (and maybe other office) documents."
> >
> > I'd say yes if they are likely to be printe
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Nuno J. Silva wrote:
> On 2011-06-24, Robert Derman wrote:
>
> > Varun Mittal wrote:
> >> I personally feel we have more important set of priorities than
> diversifying
> >> right now into PDF reader. Also no point inventing the wheel again when
> >> there are seve
"LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF
Reader"
[ ... ]
What I
meant by HUGE when I referred to Adobe Reader was the more than 6 Gigs
of hard drive space it takes up! By contrast all of the LibreOffice
suite of programs takes up 475 Megs of space. That means that
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 25 Jun 2011, at 08:33, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> > Manfred wrote:
> >
> > "I still believe that PDF is the best solution to distribute final
> versions
> > of text (and maybe other office) documents."
> >
> > I'd say yes if they are likely to
Message-
>> From: Robert Derman [mailto:robert.der...@pressenter.com] Sent: Thursday,
>> June 23, 2011 21:24
>> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
>> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for
>> "PDF Reader"
>>
>&g
On 26 June 2011 01:15, Sean White wrote:
> I dont thinks thats normal somehow, i have been using Adobe Reader for
> years
> and have NEVER had it come past 200MB.
>
ISTR a whole load of adverising crap in one large Acrobat download.
Back to discussion, what's with all the PDF hate.
Not hate,
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Nuno J. Silva wrote:
>> I know Evince runs in Windows, just see its download page
>>
>
> I will suggest you to investigate poppler rather than evince. Most floss pdf
> viewers really are based of propper
Sean White wrote:
I dont thinks thats normal somehow, i have been using Adobe Reader for years
and have NEVER had it come past 200MB.
Back to discussion, what's with all the PDF hate.
Actually I don't hate PDF, I use it frequently and as such I am glad
that OOo and LO have the capability of ou
@pressenter.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:55
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF
Reader"
Sean White wrote:
> I dont thinks thats normal somehow, i have been using Adobe Reader for years
&
ading, you have
to click on a sub file and then go up to the folder you want.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Derman [mailto:robert.der...@pressenter.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:55
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader"
On 2011-06-25, Ian Lynch wrote:
> On 25 June 2011 10:02, timofonic timofonic wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Nuno J. Silva
>> wrote:
>> > On 2011-06-24, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> >
>> >> This, however, won't work. Document fidelity is not the aim of ODT
>> >> files, while it is the
I am just a user, but have been using Oo for 3-4 years & now libO. The
biggest issue I face is when I forget to save a file to doc format
before emailing it to somebody who uses MS Off.
I end up having to resend it in doc format.
I try to avoid this by telling my associates to get libO, so that w
The problem with building a reader is that it would be about the same size
as LibreOffice. OpenDocument is very different from PDF. For those who can't
install LO, they probably can't install the reader either.
You have to think about file formats when interacting with people, just like
you have t
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> The solution here is for you to make DOC,
> etc. your default format so that the computer will do the right thing even
> when you forget. The long-term solution is for people to standardize on
> ODF.
>
My SME company is totally libO..so that
Keith Curtis wrote:
The problem with building a reader is that it would be about the same size
as LibreOffice. OpenDocument is very different from PDF. For those who can't
install LO, they probably can't install the reader either.
Perhaps separating the modules of LO so that users could downlo
On 2 July 2011 23:22, Robert Derman wrote:
> Keith Curtis wrote:
>
>> The problem with building a reader is that it would be about the same size
>> as LibreOffice. OpenDocument is very different from PDF. For those who
>> can't
>> install LO, they probably can't install the reader either.
>>
>>
>
Ian Lynch wrote:
On 2 July 2011 23:22, Robert Derman wrote:
Keith Curtis wrote:
The problem with building a reader is that it would be about the same size
as LibreOffice. OpenDocument is very different from PDF. For those who
can't
install LO, they probably can't install the reader e
On 3 July 2011 21:38, Robert Derman wrote:
> Ian Lynch wrote:
>
>> On 2 July 2011 23:22, Robert Derman wrote
>>
>>
>>> Keith Curtis wrote:
>>>
>>>
The problem with building a reader is that it would be about the same
size
as LibreOffice. OpenDocument is very different from PDF. Fo
As far as the request for the ability to download individual
components of LO, this should not be enabled. The whole concept of the
predecessor staroffice product was to provide various functionalities
in terms of word-processing, spreadsheets, drawing, etc. and this
should be continued.
Those see
e-letter wrote:
As far as the request for the ability to download individual
components of LO, this should not be enabled. The whole concept of the
predecessor staroffice product was to provide various functionalities
in terms of word-processing, spreadsheets, drawing, etc. and this
should be con
On 5 July 2011 21:58, Robert Derman wrote:
> e-letter wrote:
>
>> As far as the request for the ability to download individual
>> components of LO, this should not be enabled. The whole concept of the
>> predecessor staroffice product was to provide various functionalities
>> in terms of word-pro
Ian Lynch wrote:
On 5 July 2011 21:58, Robert Derman wrote:
e-letter wrote:
As far as the request for the ability to download individual
components of LO, this should not be enabled. The whole concept of the
predecessor staroffice product was to provide various functionalities
in ter
On 6 July 2011 08:45, Robert Derman wrote:
Someone explained here in a more detailed and understandable way just what
> the nature of the design of Staroffice actually is. That in fact it is just
> one big program and the different modules are just different about 300 K
> each user interfaces wh
On 07/06/2011 03:45 AM, Robert Derman wrote:
Ian Lynch wrote:
On 5 July 2011 21:58, Robert Derman
wrote:
e-letter wrote:
As far as the request for the ability to download individual
components of LO, this should not be enabled. The whole concept of the
predecessor staroffice product was to
Anyway, I don´t consider PDF a proper "OPEN" standard, as it´s not
designed by a global consortium like OASIS.
What about designing a new file format for this purpose and being part
of OpenDocument? Some people said DjVu being accurate but lacking some
features (vectorial image support?).
I'm not
format? Re: [tdf-discuss]
New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"
Anyway, I don´t consider PDF a proper "OPEN" standard, as it´s not
designed by a global consortium like OASIS.
What about designing a new file format for this purpose and being par
58 matches
Mail list logo
